The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by BlueMoonset (talk) 05:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• ... that in the Portrait of the Duchess of Alba (pictured), the duchess is wearing her mourning clothes, as her husband died the year before?

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/A Room With No View

Created/expanded by Thine Antique Pen (talk). Self nom at 10:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Goya was "charming," but the duchess was "flamboyant and provocative." Says who?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• This website, which references the sentence at the end of it. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 11:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

  venetianred.net is a blog though. Ceoil (talk) 11:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

  OK, removed. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 11:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

  Her full title [1] would make a great hook, though I can think of a way to construct it. Any ideas? Ceoil (talk) 11:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

  None at all. Can the review continue? Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Looks OK to me now, could do with more book sources if possible though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

  No, its not good to go. venetianred.net is a blog and eeweems.com is self published. Ceoil (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

  Removed both and replaced with books. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

  Thank you. Ceoil (talk) 18:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Question Would you show me where in ref 7 you find this information: "This work is among a number Goya painted of the duchess. When she retreated to a residence for a period of mourning, Goya followed and created numerous paintings and sketches of the duchess during her stay. The duchess had a childless marriage, as her husband died the year before."? Thanks, Goodvac (talk) 03:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, but that was removed (see above). I've re-referenced it and removed a bit. I believe that the original tick above is still in place. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 09:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• No, that tick doesn't preclude further queries.
  The General Books LLC reference you just added is a reprint of Wikipedia articles. Please try again. Goodvac (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Done. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• "This inscription was initially hidden, but, after the painting was restored in the twentieth century, the words were revealed." is sourced to ref 5, which says only the word "solo" was hidden.
  Where in ref 6 does it say "The painting is sometimes confused with a similar painting, The White Duchess."? Goodvac (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but the references got really messed up per above. I've done the best I can, and have removed the white duchess bit, and have added another reference on the "solo" part. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. Perhaps next time you would avoid extra work for both yourself and others by constructing the article with reliable sources in the first place.
  The original reference for "solo" is still in place, and frankly it looks more reliable than the one you added, which is of suspect reliability. So I'd advise reconciling the article text to the original reference rather than finding a reference that supports the text as it stands. Goodvac (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Article is new enough and long enough. The issues have been addressed. Image has an appropriate license for the main page. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 16:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• No, my comment above has not been responded to. Goodvac (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see what the issue is, at all. I was asked to remove that reference, and have now re-added. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• You are not carefully reading my comment. I was referring to this reference. Goodvac (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• I am not understanding your comment. What, in detail, are you asking me to do? Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Please revert this edit and this edit. Then modify "This inscription was initially hidden, but after the painting was restored in the twentieth century the words were revealed" to coincide with ref 6, which states that only the word "solo" was hidden. Goodvac (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Done then. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Not what I asked, but I've fixed it myself. Article is good to go. Goodvac (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)